At this moment, the Left has enormous political, financial and organizational advantages over conservatives: the control all of the nation's social institutions, including the news media, education, entertainment, the arts, and government bureaucracies.
They possess a gargantuan infrastructure of lobbyists and interest groups, richly funded by "philanthropic" trusts and billionaires such as George Soros, Tom Steyer and Ted Turner.
And they have virtual armies of political activists, who add virtually nothing to the nation's economy, but receive financial support in exchange for their labor in support of Progressive, socialist and radical leftist causes.
Conservatives have nothing like this. Republicans and conservatives control Congress (sort of), most state legislatures, and rely on only FOX News and a virtual handful of political blogs to counter the Left's overwhelming message.
Most conservatives are not politically active, preferring to work and live their lives in peace. Right-leaning funders such as the Koch brothers (who are, in truth, libertarians) cannot hope to counter the money that flows toward the Left. Precious few right-leaning organizations, such as the NRA, have any true political influence, and are thus primary targets for leftist groups such as Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, and Think Progress.
Until such time as political conservatives come together in a meaningful and nationwide effort to counter not only the Left-wing infrastructure but the Progressive influences in their own midst (i.e. - the so-called "alt-Right"), they will continue to lose the battle for the soul and future of America.
Incremental, regional and single-issue efforts will not suffice. This is a war - not one being fought with arms, but with ideas. But the arms will, in time come. And they will come sooner than you may believe.
Unfortunately, most rallying points aside from single-issue groups have turned out to be the same people trying to make a buck off an idea, and then neutering the efforts of the many through power plays and infighting.
Note, if you will, the Left will go to the mike in a townhall with about twenty groups all pushing the same message. The spokespersons might be different, but the people behind the curtain are the same, the message is the same with minor variations, the presentation well-oiled, the handouts slick and bright and professionally done (one of the ways to spot the Leftists is by the signs that were printed in advance for the 'spontaneous protest').
Then, too, getting Conservatives to come together on more than one issue can be a pain, too.
Part of the allure of the TEA party movement was that people were Taxed Enough Already, but the MSM and even conservative media rapidly presented the movement as a Party, and media and elements within the GOP quickly tried to co-opt it from the top down, with some temporary success followed by disillusionment by the rank and file who were (and still are, to some extent) the movement. Grass roots movements do not respond well to being taken over from the top, as that top down soi disant leadership is part of what the movement existed to protest.
Philosophically, we are not given to acting as a collective like those on the Left, even though they have no fewer factions. While white communists may pay lip service on the Left to BLM causes, in reality, their only real common ground is hatred for anything on the Right, and that is further fueled by things like the mess in Charlottesville which present the "right" as hate-groups, perfectly in line with the rabble rousing optics of the Left.
The Conservatives aren't ordinarily people who hate, despite being accused of it often, but are people who greet those with the same philosophies of a limited and Constitutional government and individual Rights (for all citizens) with open arms. We have, however, allowed ourselves to be hyphenated into factions which are easily set upon each other--just look around--and part of the trouble is the hyphenation, and the very definition of "Conservative".
"Liberal" can be seen as a relative term. If someone is to the philosophical Left, the appellation fits. Conservative, however, by its very nature, implies a measure against a set of standards, of philosophical truths which are immutable, whether those be 'social' truths (often scripturally based, most often dealing with abortion, but increasingly health care, and coming eugenics/euthanasia), standards of fiscal fairness, Constitutional requirements/prohibitions placed on government, safeguarding individual Rights, enforcing statutory requirements on behaviour of individuals from the least to those holding high office.
Those Conservative positions have been presented by media as an a la carte menu, but in reality, if you are a "social conservative" the other positions follow. Being Conservative on one issue, but not on others, makes one more of a right leaning liberal. It's funny how people can be NRA members, hate gun control, and still vote for Democrats, but it happens.
There is the weakness, and perhaps why 'single issue conservatives' ultimately seem to be unable to play nice very long with "social Conservatives" or vice-versa. If we can't go to the podium together, then let's do so separately. There is the appearance of force in numbers (the force multiplier the Left uses) when they have several people with different websites and the same agenda, likely serving on each other's advisory boards, go to the front of the crowd to rant for their organization, when in reality they are all tentacles of the same organism.
It is high time the Conservatives organize similarly, coordinate efforts, overlap but do not duplicate message any more than needed to gain the repetition needed to drive concepts into the limelight, and if necessary, provide our own media outlets.
Something I learned when a member of a Motorcyclists' group which raised money locally for charity: When we rode in a parade to promote the group and fundraisers and the charities we donated to, we wrote our own press releases, we wrote the copy for the announcer in the reviewing stand, timed for length of time in the vicinity of the stand. Those people (the announcers and the reporters) were happy to seem knowledgeable and have a slick blurb to promote the group without having to lift a pen or type a letter, and we got the press we wanted--and raised a lot of money to make a difference in the community, which only enhanced our image, and ultimately, ability to raise money for the charities which benefited.
We have to control the optics, we have to control the message, we have to control as much as possible the public perception of our group and our cause: the restoration of the American Republic.
We saw from the MSM accounts of the TEA party marches in DC that the actions of Conservatives will be minimized when they cannot be ignored ("a few thousand" or "tens of thousands" allegedly marched, when the real numbers were likely in excess of a million), ignored when they can be (just not reported), and presented in the worst light when possible (send in the agitators!).
That means we have to police our ranks of the sort of identity politics found in the alt-right, which will not only be a target for Antifa, but will be groups which the media will present in close-in shots as the "hate filled" face of Conservatism.
If need be, groups which insist on presenting a conspicuous image that can be used against Conservatives (Klan, Neonazi, white supremacist/separatist) will have to be separated from the main rally.
That means the media will be over there with them, likely engaged in street conflict with Antifa, BLM, or the like, but there would be a separate set of optics for that gathering, with another group devoid of the "alt-right' symbolism, acting peacefully, and trying to get the message out. That latter face is the face that needs to be put up on social and other media, while the Left pushes its optics. At least this would get the counter-message to someone besides the choir.
That, like the very nature of the Republic itself, means that we have to put aside minor differences and focus on the primary issue, the reduction of Federal Government to within its Constitutional bounds, in size and scope. The rest will generally follow.
As the optics improve and the MSM loses even more credibility (because the peaceful images can be used to attack the presentation of violence in the streets), funding will improve, as well as public support, because the MSM will lose the ability to present the demonstrations as violent, hate-filled, or in a negative light. That will bring more conservatives out of the woodwork, willing to associate with other conservatives and not be tied in as one of the groups who present the negative optics.
That will not stop the media from trying, nor might it keep the legions of street thugs they employ from attacking peaceful demonstrations, but if we can't resist that without
looking threatening, we are going to have a problem. The bottom line is that we can resist that, even in a street fight. It's one thing to look harmless, another to be that way, and those optics can be engineered without giving up capability, something conservatives need to be conscious of.
The left's media blitzkrieg is pressing harder out of desperation, but how many people do you know in the real world who buy into that? How many eyes can you pull the veil of the MSM away from, simply by asking questions. That's the real ground game, to undermine people's belief in the MSM narrative. If you can do that, we're on our way to the restoration of the Republic.
